With less than three months to go before the start of the UN climate change conference in Paris, the world is a long way short of promising cuts in greenhouse gas emissions big enough to deliver a good chance of climate safety.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has asked world governments to submit plans – known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) – detailing the emissions cuts they will agree to make.

By 1st September 29 governments had submitted their INDCs to the UN, among them the EU which covers all its member states. These INDCs collectively cover 56 countries, 43% of global population and 65% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

But a new study reveals that the climate targets so far submitted will lead to global emissions far higher than the levels needed to hold warming to below 2C – the internationally-agreed safety limit.

Four research institutes – Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) – have joined up to form Climate Action Tracker (CAT). They have just released their analysis at climate talks under way in Bonn, Germany, at the start of the last but one week of negotiations before Paris, and they make for dismal reading.

Emissions set to rise far above the 2C pathway

With the INDCs submitted to date, the CAT report projects that total global emissions are on track to be 53-57 GtCO2e in 2025 and 55-59 GtCO2e (gigatonnes of  carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2030, levels it describes as “far above the least-cost global pathways consistent with limiting warming below 2°C.”

CAT has assessed 15 of the INDCs covering 64.5% of global emissions. Of these it judges seven to be ‘inadequate’, six as ‘medium’ and only two as ‘sufficient’ for reaching the goal of limiting the rise in average global temperatures to within 2C of pre-industrial levels, in order to avert serious climate change.

The CAT analysis shows that to hold global warming below 2C, governments need to significantly strengthen their INDCs and collectively reduce global emissions: “Additional reductions in the order of 12-15 GtO2e by 2025 and of 17-21 GtCO2e by 2030 are needed for global emissions to be consistent with a 2°C pathway.”

If the current 2030 INDCs are locked in, CAT says that holding warming below 2C would become almost impracticable, as CO₂ emission reduction rates would need to exceed 5% a year after 2030, and would make holding warming below 1.5C virtually impossible. Many climate scientists say the 2C safety limit is too high, and argue for a 1.5C maximum instead.

Bill Hare, a physicist who is co-founder and CEO of Climate Analytics, says: “It is clear that if the Paris meeting locks in present climate commitments for 2030, holding warming below 2C could essentially become infeasible, and 1.5C beyond reach. Given the present level of pledged climate action, commitments should only be made until 2025. The INDCs therefore need to be considerably strengthened for the period 2020-2025.”

Only two countries are on target: Ethiopia and Morocco

The seven countries whose INDCs are described as inadequate by CAT are Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Russia. It says their proposals are not considered to be a fair contribution to limiting warming to 2C – from almost any perspective.

China, the EU, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland and the US are judged ‘medium’, which the CAT says means they are “within the upper and least ambitious end of what could be considered as fair, and if all countries put forward a similar level of ambition warming would exceed 2°C”.

“One would have expected all the new government climate targets combined to put the world on a lower emissions pathway, but they haven’t”, says Louise Jeffery, a PIK researcher on climate impacts and vulnerabilities. “One contributing factor is the fact that Russia, Canada, and New Zealand’s INDCs are inconsistent with their stated long-term (2050) goals.”

The INDCs of two African countries, Ethiopia and Morocco, are the only ones assessed by the CAT as being in line with the ambition to limit temperature rise to 2C.

Countries need to step up their targets – and their policies!

In most cases, CAT also found that the policies governments have in place now would not reduce emissions enough even to match their INDCs for 2025. The exceptions are China and the EU, who would have to implement minimal extra policies to meet their targets, and could even exceed them.

“Some countries propose INDCs close to the current trajectory giving confidence that they are met (e.g. EU and China). Others have put forward a target that would be a significant change in trend, but these are not yet supported by any significant existing legislation, e.g. Australia and Canada, raising questions about the likely implementation.

“Yet others are showing progress in policy implementation, continuously moving their future trajectories downwards, but policies are not yet sufficient to meet their (still inadequate) INDCs (e.g. USA). The gap between pledges and policies increases through time, highlighting the need for long-term policy action.”

Niklas Höhne, a founding partner of NewClimate Institute, says: “Most governments that have already submitted an INDC need to review their targets in light of the global goal and, in most cases, will need to strengthen them.”

INDCs are yet to come from 140 countries. The ten highest emitters yet to submit INDCs are India, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Pakistan.

The report: ‘How close are INDCs to 2 and 1.5C pathways?‘

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

With less than three months to go before the start of the UN climate change conference in Paris, the world is a long way short of promising cuts in greenhouse gas emissions big enough to deliver a good chance of climate safety.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has asked world governments to submit plans – known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) – detailing the emissions cuts they will agree to make.

By 1st September 29 governments had submitted their INDCs to the UN, among them the EU which covers all its member states. These INDCs collectively cover 56 countries, 43% of global population and 65% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

But a new study reveals that the climate targets so far submitted will lead to global emissions far higher than the levels needed to hold warming to below 2C – the internationally-agreed safety limit.

Four research institutes – Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) – have joined up to form Climate Action Tracker (CAT). They have just released their analysis at climate talks under way in Bonn, Germany, at the start of the last but one week of negotiations before Paris, and they make for dismal reading.

Emissions set to rise far above the 2C pathway

With the INDCs submitted to date, the CAT report projects that total global emissions are on track to be 53-57 GtCO2e in 2025 and 55-59 GtCO2e (gigatonnes of  carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2030, levels it describes as “far above the least-cost global pathways consistent with limiting warming below 2°C.”

CAT has assessed 15 of the INDCs covering 64.5% of global emissions. Of these it judges seven to be ‘inadequate’, six as ‘medium’ and only two as ‘sufficient’ for reaching the goal of limiting the rise in average global temperatures to within 2C of pre-industrial levels, in order to avert serious climate change.

The CAT analysis shows that to hold global warming below 2C, governments need to significantly strengthen their INDCs and collectively reduce global emissions: “Additional reductions in the order of 12-15 GtO2e by 2025 and of 17-21 GtCO2e by 2030 are needed for global emissions to be consistent with a 2°C pathway.”

If the current 2030 INDCs are locked in, CAT says that holding warming below 2C would become almost impracticable, as CO₂ emission reduction rates would need to exceed 5% a year after 2030, and would make holding warming below 1.5C virtually impossible. Many climate scientists say the 2C safety limit is too high, and argue for a 1.5C maximum instead.

Bill Hare, a physicist who is co-founder and CEO of Climate Analytics, says: “It is clear that if the Paris meeting locks in present climate commitments for 2030, holding warming below 2C could essentially become infeasible, and 1.5C beyond reach. Given the present level of pledged climate action, commitments should only be made until 2025. The INDCs therefore need to be considerably strengthened for the period 2020-2025.”

Only two countries are on target: Ethiopia and Morocco

The seven countries whose INDCs are described as inadequate by CAT are Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Russia. It says their proposals are not considered to be a fair contribution to limiting warming to 2C – from almost any perspective.

China, the EU, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland and the US are judged ‘medium’, which the CAT says means they are “within the upper and least ambitious end of what could be considered as fair, and if all countries put forward a similar level of ambition warming would exceed 2°C”.

“One would have expected all the new government climate targets combined to put the world on a lower emissions pathway, but they haven’t”, says Louise Jeffery, a PIK researcher on climate impacts and vulnerabilities. “One contributing factor is the fact that Russia, Canada, and New Zealand’s INDCs are inconsistent with their stated long-term (2050) goals.”

The INDCs of two African countries, Ethiopia and Morocco, are the only ones assessed by the CAT as being in line with the ambition to limit temperature rise to 2C.

Countries need to step up their targets – and their policies!

In most cases, CAT also found that the policies governments have in place now would not reduce emissions enough even to match their INDCs for 2025. The exceptions are China and the EU, who would have to implement minimal extra policies to meet their targets, and could even exceed them.

“Some countries propose INDCs close to the current trajectory giving confidence that they are met (e.g. EU and China). Others have put forward a target that would be a significant change in trend, but these are not yet supported by any significant existing legislation, e.g. Australia and Canada, raising questions about the likely implementation.

“Yet others are showing progress in policy implementation, continuously moving their future trajectories downwards, but policies are not yet sufficient to meet their (still inadequate) INDCs (e.g. USA). The gap between pledges and policies increases through time, highlighting the need for long-term policy action.”

Niklas Höhne, a founding partner of NewClimate Institute, says: “Most governments that have already submitted an INDC need to review their targets in light of the global goal and, in most cases, will need to strengthen them.”

INDCs are yet to come from 140 countries. The ten highest emitters yet to submit INDCs are India, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Pakistan.

The report: ‘How close are INDCs to 2 and 1.5C pathways?‘

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

With less than three months to go before the start of the UN climate change conference in Paris, the world is a long way short of promising cuts in greenhouse gas emissions big enough to deliver a good chance of climate safety.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has asked world governments to submit plans – known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) – detailing the emissions cuts they will agree to make.

By 1st September 29 governments had submitted their INDCs to the UN, among them the EU which covers all its member states. These INDCs collectively cover 56 countries, 43% of global population and 65% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

But a new study reveals that the climate targets so far submitted will lead to global emissions far higher than the levels needed to hold warming to below 2C – the internationally-agreed safety limit.

Four research institutes – Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) – have joined up to form Climate Action Tracker (CAT). They have just released their analysis at climate talks under way in Bonn, Germany, at the start of the last but one week of negotiations before Paris, and they make for dismal reading.

Emissions set to rise far above the 2C pathway

With the INDCs submitted to date, the CAT report projects that total global emissions are on track to be 53-57 GtCO2e in 2025 and 55-59 GtCO2e (gigatonnes of  carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2030, levels it describes as “far above the least-cost global pathways consistent with limiting warming below 2°C.”

CAT has assessed 15 of the INDCs covering 64.5% of global emissions. Of these it judges seven to be ‘inadequate’, six as ‘medium’ and only two as ‘sufficient’ for reaching the goal of limiting the rise in average global temperatures to within 2C of pre-industrial levels, in order to avert serious climate change.

The CAT analysis shows that to hold global warming below 2C, governments need to significantly strengthen their INDCs and collectively reduce global emissions: “Additional reductions in the order of 12-15 GtO2e by 2025 and of 17-21 GtCO2e by 2030 are needed for global emissions to be consistent with a 2°C pathway.”

If the current 2030 INDCs are locked in, CAT says that holding warming below 2C would become almost impracticable, as CO₂ emission reduction rates would need to exceed 5% a year after 2030, and would make holding warming below 1.5C virtually impossible. Many climate scientists say the 2C safety limit is too high, and argue for a 1.5C maximum instead.

Bill Hare, a physicist who is co-founder and CEO of Climate Analytics, says: “It is clear that if the Paris meeting locks in present climate commitments for 2030, holding warming below 2C could essentially become infeasible, and 1.5C beyond reach. Given the present level of pledged climate action, commitments should only be made until 2025. The INDCs therefore need to be considerably strengthened for the period 2020-2025.”

Only two countries are on target: Ethiopia and Morocco

The seven countries whose INDCs are described as inadequate by CAT are Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Russia. It says their proposals are not considered to be a fair contribution to limiting warming to 2C – from almost any perspective.

China, the EU, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland and the US are judged ‘medium’, which the CAT says means they are “within the upper and least ambitious end of what could be considered as fair, and if all countries put forward a similar level of ambition warming would exceed 2°C”.

“One would have expected all the new government climate targets combined to put the world on a lower emissions pathway, but they haven’t”, says Louise Jeffery, a PIK researcher on climate impacts and vulnerabilities. “One contributing factor is the fact that Russia, Canada, and New Zealand’s INDCs are inconsistent with their stated long-term (2050) goals.”

The INDCs of two African countries, Ethiopia and Morocco, are the only ones assessed by the CAT as being in line with the ambition to limit temperature rise to 2C.

Countries need to step up their targets – and their policies!

In most cases, CAT also found that the policies governments have in place now would not reduce emissions enough even to match their INDCs for 2025. The exceptions are China and the EU, who would have to implement minimal extra policies to meet their targets, and could even exceed them.

“Some countries propose INDCs close to the current trajectory giving confidence that they are met (e.g. EU and China). Others have put forward a target that would be a significant change in trend, but these are not yet supported by any significant existing legislation, e.g. Australia and Canada, raising questions about the likely implementation.

“Yet others are showing progress in policy implementation, continuously moving their future trajectories downwards, but policies are not yet sufficient to meet their (still inadequate) INDCs (e.g. USA). The gap between pledges and policies increases through time, highlighting the need for long-term policy action.”

Niklas Höhne, a founding partner of NewClimate Institute, says: “Most governments that have already submitted an INDC need to review their targets in light of the global goal and, in most cases, will need to strengthen them.”

INDCs are yet to come from 140 countries. The ten highest emitters yet to submit INDCs are India, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Pakistan.

The report: ‘How close are INDCs to 2 and 1.5C pathways?‘

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

With less than three months to go before the start of the UN climate change conference in Paris, the world is a long way short of promising cuts in greenhouse gas emissions big enough to deliver a good chance of climate safety.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has asked world governments to submit plans – known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) – detailing the emissions cuts they will agree to make.

By 1st September 29 governments had submitted their INDCs to the UN, among them the EU which covers all its member states. These INDCs collectively cover 56 countries, 43% of global population and 65% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

But a new study reveals that the climate targets so far submitted will lead to global emissions far higher than the levels needed to hold warming to below 2C – the internationally-agreed safety limit.

Four research institutes – Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) – have joined up to form Climate Action Tracker (CAT). They have just released their analysis at climate talks under way in Bonn, Germany, at the start of the last but one week of negotiations before Paris, and they make for dismal reading.

Emissions set to rise far above the 2C pathway

With the INDCs submitted to date, the CAT report projects that total global emissions are on track to be 53-57 GtCO2e in 2025 and 55-59 GtCO2e (gigatonnes of  carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2030, levels it describes as “far above the least-cost global pathways consistent with limiting warming below 2°C.”

CAT has assessed 15 of the INDCs covering 64.5% of global emissions. Of these it judges seven to be ‘inadequate’, six as ‘medium’ and only two as ‘sufficient’ for reaching the goal of limiting the rise in average global temperatures to within 2C of pre-industrial levels, in order to avert serious climate change.

The CAT analysis shows that to hold global warming below 2C, governments need to significantly strengthen their INDCs and collectively reduce global emissions: “Additional reductions in the order of 12-15 GtO2e by 2025 and of 17-21 GtCO2e by 2030 are needed for global emissions to be consistent with a 2°C pathway.”

If the current 2030 INDCs are locked in, CAT says that holding warming below 2C would become almost impracticable, as CO₂ emission reduction rates would need to exceed 5% a year after 2030, and would make holding warming below 1.5C virtually impossible. Many climate scientists say the 2C safety limit is too high, and argue for a 1.5C maximum instead.

Bill Hare, a physicist who is co-founder and CEO of Climate Analytics, says: “It is clear that if the Paris meeting locks in present climate commitments for 2030, holding warming below 2C could essentially become infeasible, and 1.5C beyond reach. Given the present level of pledged climate action, commitments should only be made until 2025. The INDCs therefore need to be considerably strengthened for the period 2020-2025.”

Only two countries are on target: Ethiopia and Morocco

The seven countries whose INDCs are described as inadequate by CAT are Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Russia. It says their proposals are not considered to be a fair contribution to limiting warming to 2C – from almost any perspective.

China, the EU, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland and the US are judged ‘medium’, which the CAT says means they are “within the upper and least ambitious end of what could be considered as fair, and if all countries put forward a similar level of ambition warming would exceed 2°C”.

“One would have expected all the new government climate targets combined to put the world on a lower emissions pathway, but they haven’t”, says Louise Jeffery, a PIK researcher on climate impacts and vulnerabilities. “One contributing factor is the fact that Russia, Canada, and New Zealand’s INDCs are inconsistent with their stated long-term (2050) goals.”

The INDCs of two African countries, Ethiopia and Morocco, are the only ones assessed by the CAT as being in line with the ambition to limit temperature rise to 2C.

Countries need to step up their targets – and their policies!

In most cases, CAT also found that the policies governments have in place now would not reduce emissions enough even to match their INDCs for 2025. The exceptions are China and the EU, who would have to implement minimal extra policies to meet their targets, and could even exceed them.

“Some countries propose INDCs close to the current trajectory giving confidence that they are met (e.g. EU and China). Others have put forward a target that would be a significant change in trend, but these are not yet supported by any significant existing legislation, e.g. Australia and Canada, raising questions about the likely implementation.

“Yet others are showing progress in policy implementation, continuously moving their future trajectories downwards, but policies are not yet sufficient to meet their (still inadequate) INDCs (e.g. USA). The gap between pledges and policies increases through time, highlighting the need for long-term policy action.”

Niklas Höhne, a founding partner of NewClimate Institute, says: “Most governments that have already submitted an INDC need to review their targets in light of the global goal and, in most cases, will need to strengthen them.”

INDCs are yet to come from 140 countries. The ten highest emitters yet to submit INDCs are India, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Pakistan.

The report: ‘How close are INDCs to 2 and 1.5C pathways?‘

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

It is an astonishing fact that, despite near universal recognition now that the war in Iraq was a disaster, no major British social institution is headed by a single one of the majority of the population wo were opposed to the war.

Every Cabinet Minister actively supported the war. Of the fifteen Tory MPs who rebelled and voted against the war, not one is a minister. Civil servants officially have no politics but privately their opinions are known.

There is not one single Permanent Under Secretary of a UK government department who was known to be against the war and most were enthusiasts. Simon Fraser, PUS at the FCO, was an active Blairite enthusiast for the war. Though no Blairite, the Head of MI6 Alex Younger was also an enthusiast.

The BBC was of course gutted following its revealing of the truth about Iraqi WMD, and the subsequent murder of David Kelly. Following the ousting of Greg Dyke, both Governors and Directors-Generals have been known supporters of the war.

Of the 107 bureaucrats in the BBC who earn over £100,000 a year, insiders estimate that only five were opponents of the war. Craig Oliver – who has now left the BBC for Cameron’s media operation – and James Purnell are absolutely typical of the BBC Iraqocracy.

Go against the grain, expect to be derided and marginalised

Every current editor of a UK national newspaper supported the Iraq war. At the time of the war there was one editor opposed – Piers Morgan – who subsequently became a derided and marginalised figure.

Not only are the editors firmly from the neo-con alliance, but the high profile commentators who cheered on the war – David Aaronovich, Nick Cohen, Melanie Phillips, John Rentoul, Rod Liddle etc. – have all seen their careers flourish. None has suffered from their appalling lack of judgement.

There is no similar raft of commentators who were against the war who enjoy such constant media promotion and massive salaries. Many, like Peter Oborne, have suffered unexpected career glitches. There is no head of a major TV channel in the UK who was against the war in Iraq.

The theme runs through all the public professions. Of the hundreds of academics who took firm positions against the Iraq War, I cannot find a single example who went on to become a University Vice-Chancellor or Principal.

By contrast actual war criminals Richard Dearlove and Valerie Amos were parachuted into academic leadership posts. The Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces were all true believers, compared to the massive scepticism that existed among senior officers.

The Iraq test even extends into the heads of institutions apparently quite unrelated, such as City of London banks and insurance companies. There are a tiny number of heads of FTSE 100 companies who were against the war.

The key test of loyalty to the neoliberal project

It is not that there is an Iraq test. It is that Iraq is the touchstone for adherence to the neo-liberal consensus. All these professionally successful people share a number of attitudes, of which support for the Iraq War is a good indicator.

There is a very strong correlation between support for the Iraq War and fierce Zionism. But there is also a strong correlation between support for the Iraq War and support for austerity economics.

The strongest correlation of all lies in support for the Iraq War and for ‘business-friendly’ tolerance of corporatism, TTIP, multinational tax avoidance, low taxation and marketization of public services including in education and health.

To return to where I started, the quite extraordinary thing is that there is a near-universal recognition in wider society that the Iraq War was both completely unjustified and a dreadful strategic blunder. Yet its support is a major pre-condition for membership of the governing elite.

The answer of course lies in its value as an indicator for a broad range of neo-liberal consensus attitudes. That is why both the SNP and Jeremy Corbyn provide such a threat to the Establishment, through denying those attitudes.

The fascinating thing is that the SNP and the Labour Party could be the only public institutions in the UK of any note with an anti-Iraq War leadership. The significance is that, in slightly different ways, both the prominence of the SNP and of Jeremy Corbyn are the result of a public revolt which the Establishment has been trying, absolutely desperately, to cut off.

Ed Miliband did not actually vote against the Iraq War, contrary to popular myth. Having both the Labour and SNP parties led by people who reject the raft of values symbolised by the Iraq test, who have broken through the depleted uranium ceiling, is a massive, massive threat to the meritlessocracy.

Institutional control appeared to be complete and impermeable. Suddenly they face the danger of the opinions of ordinary people carrying weight. Expect the media control mechanisms to whir into still greater overdrive.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.

This article was originally published on Craig Murray’s website.

Each year, humans reduce the number of trees worldwide by 15 billion. This is one of the startling conclusions of new research published in the journal Nature.

The study also estimates the Earth is home to more than three trillion trees – that’s 3,000 billion – so you may think that while 15 billion is a very large number, humans shouldn’t be at risk of making significant changes to global tree cover.

However, the team of 31 international scientists led by Thomas Crowther at Yale University also present evidence that the rise of human civilisation has reduced the numbers of trees on Earth by 46%. In many areas we can’t see the wood because there are no trees.

Unlike polar bears, pandas or peregrine falcons, trees and their demise typically do not generate much passion or protest. But the 180,000 km2 of tree cover being lost each year represents a serious destabilising force on the current biosphere.

Previous estimates for the total number of trees on Earth have been much lower. The new study is important not only because it gives a higher number, but how it was produced. As well as using remote sensing data such as images taken by satellites that can classify land type, the research also integrated 429,775 ground-based assessments of tree density.

The researchers used this information to build a series of mathematical models which can fill in any gaps in the data with robust estimates. This allowed them to produce the first continuous map of global tree densities at the one square kilometre scale.

Trees as cloud machines and rain bringers

Humans have long used trees as fuel for cooking or smelting, fibres for clothes, timber for construction. However it is the indirect value of trees that may prove to be more important.

A solitary tree can provide a habitat to myriad species in its leaves, branches, bark and roots. But it is the effects trees have on their environments that can affect life across entire landscapes. When alive, trees can stabilise slopes and the course of rivers and streams. When dead their wood debris can form dams and so create ponds and lakes.

As well as changing water on the ground, they can alter it in the air. Transpiration is the name given to the process whereby trees (and other plants) suck up water through their roots, transport it through trunks and branches leaving the tree through tiny holes called stoma in their leaves.

Stoma are crucial as they allow carbon dioxide to be absorbed, which along with water and sunlight are the ingredients with which all trees produce their food. Only a fraction of the water absorbed is consumed during photosynthesis, with the rest evaporating out from leaf stoma.

This means some trees act as massive humidifiers. Through sucking up water held in soil and releasing it tens of meters above the ground, forests can be effective cloud machines as that water vapour rises and then condenses. This is one of the reasons why it rains in the rainforest.

The drying Amazon

As well as changing local weather, large forests can affect the global climate. Through the burning of fossil fuels, humans release approximately 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, each year. Higher concentrations of CO₂ in the air can lead to faster rates of photosynthesis and more vigorous tree and plant growth, a process termed carbon fertilisation.

This draws some of this additional carbon dioxide back down from the atmosphere. The Amazon rainforest alone absorbs approximately two billion tons of extra carbon dioxide each year. Within its leaves, branches, trunks and roots lies more than a hundred billion metric tonnes of carbon. Thus the Amazon rainforest has served as an important counter to anthropogenic climate change.

Rather worryingly, it appears as if the Amazon’s ability to soak up excessive carbon dioxide is grinding to a halt. Faster tree growth has been accompanied with higher mortality. Trees that live fast die young. As climate change progresses, mortality rates are predicted to climb higher largely as consequence of extreme weather events such as droughts. A world that continues to warm is one which could see a significantly reduced Amazon rain forest.

The die-back of the Amazon has been identified as a potential global tipping point. There are good reasons to think that the Amazon rainforest, if sufficiently stressed by climate change could rapidly collapse and be replaced by savannah-type vegetation or even desert. After all, less than 10,000 years ago the Sahara was lush and well populated.

Any appreciable dieback of the Amazon would lead to many billions of tons of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere as the carbon previously locked up in tree biomass is released as dead wood decomposes.

The Amazon drought of 2010 greatly increased tree mortality with the result that more than two billion tons of carbon dioxide was emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere (that’s four times as much as the UK’s contribution in 2012). Over mere decades the Amazon could turn from a large sink of carbon to a large source, further amplifying climate change.

We know what to do. But we’re not doing it – yet

A sensible course of action when dealing with this potential carbon bomb would be to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses and manage the forest on the ground as best we can. Instead emissions continue to rise while we hit the unexploded ordinance with a hammer. Or rather a chainsaw.

Trees in the Amazon continue to be felled. Humans are attacking the forest on two fronts: a local front that follows new roads which open up previously undisturbed forest to logging, and a global front through emissions of greenhouse gases from industrialised nations. The two will interact which could significantly increase the risk of widespread die back of the Amazon.

The new research published in Nature will help improve our understanding of the role trees play in ecological and biogeochemical processes not just in the Amazon but across the globe. This knowledge could help inform management practices for the remaining forests.

But perhaps its greatest impact will be the realisation that the emergence of civilisation has led to the net destruction of nearly three trillion of Earth’s trees. That could serve as a powerful perspective for comprehending the impacts humans have had on the natural world.

James Dyke is Lecturer in Complex Systems Simulation at University of Southampton.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Dear bread manufacturer or retailer,

I am writing to you to follow up the letter I sent in July about the World Health Organisation’s Committee’s finding that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen to humans.

I’m grateful to Tesco, Sansbury’s, Waitrose, Co-op, Warburtons, the National Association of British and Irish Millers and Allied Mills for their replies to my letter or their comments on it, and I am looking forward to our meeting with the Federation of Bakers in early September.

The main response made by industry spokespeople to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has been to say that while it is clear that up to a third of samples of UK bread tested by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF) contain glyphosate, glyphosate is present below the Maximum Residue Level, and therefore should not be of concern to your customers.

As many scientists have pointed out, there has been long-standing scientific concern that glyphosate can have negative impacts on human health at well below the MRL, and that it may act as a hormone disrupter, and there is therefore unlikely to be a level at which glyphosate can be safely eaten in bread. This is because hormone disrupting chemicals can have an impact on human health at extremely low doses.

Since I last wrote to you, two new scientific papers have been published which support previous scientific concerns that there are no levels below which glyphosate can be safely eaten in bread.

Damaging alterations in gene function at

The first paper ‘Transcriptome analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure‘ (2015 Environ Health, 2015 Aug 25; 14(1): 70. doi: 10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1) concludes:

“A distinct and consistent alteration in the pattern of gene expression was found in both the liver and kidneys of the Roundup treatment group … these alterations in gene function were consistent with fibrosis (scarring), necrosis (areas of dead tissue), phospholipidosis (disturbed fat metabolism) and damage to mitochondria (the centres of respiration in cells.” [Note: Roundup is Monsanto’s proprietary glyphosate herbicide product.]

Over 4,000 genes were affected in the Roundup treatment group, with either increased or decreased activity (expression).  The glyphosate equivalent dose of Roundup administered in this study is what may be found in drinking water (the levels investigated were half that permitted in drinking water in the European Union).

Moreover the amount of glyphosate-equivalent Roundup consumed by the research animals on a daily basis was many thousands of times below the regulatory set safety limits of glyphosate alone.

The lead scientist, Dr Michael Antoniou of Kings College said: “The findings of our study are very worrying as they confirm that a very low level of consumption of Roundup weedkiller over the long term can result in liver and kidney damage. Our results also suggest that regulators should re-consider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.”

Liver and kidney damage at ultra-low environmental doses

The second paper, ‘Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits‘, concludes:

“Our results suggest that chronic exposure to a GBH [Glyphosate-based herbicide] in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system at an ultra-low, environmental dose can result in liver and kidney damage with potential significant health implications for animal and human populations.”

The study highlights toxic effects below regulatory limits, in around 30 studies, including studies performed by chemical companies on their own products. This new study also looked at the impact of Roundup at a concentration of 0.1 parts per billion, with a glyphosate concentration which was half the concentration in drinking water allowed by the European Union (which is 0.1 μg/L):

“The results showed that Roundup caused an increased incidence of anatomical signs of pathologies, as well as changes in urine and blood biochemical parameters suggestive of liver and kidney functional insufficiency in both sexes.”

The scientists say that their results suggest that further research is needed “to evaluate the endocrine disruptive capability of glyphosate-based herbicides.”

They add that “It was previously known that glyphosate consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke kidney failure and reproductive difficulties. The results of the study presented here indicate that consumption of far lower levels of a GBH formulation, at admissible glyphosate-equivalent concentrations, are associated with wide-scale alterations of the liver and kidney transcriptome that correlate with the observed signs of hepatic and kidney anatomorphological and biochemical pathological changes in these organs.”

Any reliance on the current MRL is potentially dangerous

The Soil Association believes that the ultra-low doses of Roundup investigated by these two new pieces of scientific research, and the negative impacts on human health identified, make any reliance on the existing MRL for glyphosate both redundant and potentially dangerous.

The only responsible course for any retailer, manufacturer or miller must be to eliminate exposure to glyphosate from eating British bread.

The main route of exposure: pre-harvest herbicide application

As you know, because we do not currently have any GM crops that are resistant to Roundup grown in the UK, the main source of glyphosate in British flour and bread comes from the practice of farmers spraying Roundup and other glyphosate-containing weed killers on wheat crops a few days before they are harvested.

The August edition of an East Anglian farming magazine contains an article in which Monsanto say that “Roundup is particularly useful” on later-maturing varieties of wheat even when grain is dry enough to combine. Farmers are being told in this article that spraying with Roundup will speed up their harvest, and give them a drier grain sample.

However, it is clear that the use of Roundup immediately before harvest is mainly a matter of convenience for farmers, and not a necessity.

Indeed, there are already concerns about the possibility of Roundup-resistant weeds arriving in the UK (they are now a major nuisance for US farmers), with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board warning of “the threat of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and the associated economic consequences.”

In the light of this new scientific evidence, published over the last few days, which confirms previous concerns about the impact of very low doses of glyphosate on human health, the Soil Association is again urging you to ensure that none of the flour or bread products you manufacture or sell to British people contains any glyphosate at all.

In view of the serious human health implications of these two new scientific studies, the Soil Association is making this letter available to the public.

Peter Melchett is Policy Director at the Soil Association.

Campaign: Peter invites food campaigners to adapt this letter to send to the consumer affairs departments of other food companies that may be providing food containing glyphosate residues, and send it under their own names.

While the SA’s current campaign focuses on bread, other companies to press on the issue include those making or retailing breakfast cereals, oatmeal, biscuits, pasta, baked foods, vegetable oils, mushy peas and other products.

Backgound information: the UK licences the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on a variety of arable crops. For example, Monsanto’s ‘Roundup with MAPP Number 12645‘ is licenced for use on wheat, barley, oats, durum wheat, combining pea and field bean, just seven days before harvest. It can also be used on oilseed rape and linseed 14 days before harvest and on mustard crops eight days before harvest.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Keep health-damaging weed killer out of our bread!‘

Captive-breeding wild animals for pets sounds like a nice alternative to stealing them from nature.

After all, wild-caught animals are commonly manhandled into sacks and boxes, crudely transported, stored under insanitary conditions, and then shipped across the globe to typically face premature and disturbing deaths somewhere between the belly of airplanes, dealer’s yards and someone’s sitting room.

I say it sounds like a nice alternative, but is it?

In human terms, the wild-caught versus captive-bred alternatives are arguably about as ‘good’ as raiding an indigenous tribe and conscripting unwilling participants into some overseas eccentric habit, or raising those conscripts in prison then exporting their offspring to the same fate.

For the individuals themselves, whether our hypothetical tribe of humans or real-life animals, the abuses inherent to being captive-bred are as bad as they are to being wild-caught. So ‘nice’, it is not.

Capture, sale and keeping mortality

Capturing animals from their natural habitat to sell as pets elsewhere is seriously negative for their wellbeing, the species population, and probably for the regional ecology.

For example, capture and pre-sale mortality rates for wild-caught ‘aquarium’ fishes are commonly 80-98%, and wild populations of certain species, such as clown fish (boosted in trade following the film ‘Finding Nemo’) have correspondingly declined by 75%.

In addition to fishes, a diversity of animals fall victim to the frivolous wastage of the exotics industry – where 70% mortality for amphibians, reptiles and mammals in just six weeks at wholesalers is ‘industry standard’.

This massive and consistent loss excludes the disastrous welfare at the ‘consumer end’ where, for example, over 90% of fishes and over 75% of reptiles die within a year in the home.

And let us not forget the expanding problem of animal sanctuaries over-laden with unwanted, unmanageable, sick, oversized or mentally disturbed survivors of someone’s curiosity fling with wildlife. Many such animals are also released into the local environment and risk becoming invasive alien species.

Breeder animals and their progeny typically face highly restrictive environments, and are subjected to stressful overcrowding or solitary confinement in diminutive draws, stacked on racks. Bare ‘essentials’ go in, profit-making bio-products come out – hydroponic-style animals, ‘grown’ to feed the fanatical fanciers of exotic pets.

Invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, all suffer the same type of deprivation.

Captive-breeding saves animals from what?

If welfare is set aside, not that it should be, but if it is, then does the evidence demonstrate unequivocal conservation and ecological benefits from artificially raising animals? From over 30 years as a wildlife trade investigator I can confidently state that it does not.

Further, in my experience, captive-breeding animals for the pet trade offers a sometimes convenient commercial production strategy in the provision of countless wild animals to unsuspecting consumers, and of course a helpful language for unthorough academics, and gullible overly-accommodating governments.

Regardless, ask a few thorough questions of those who compliment captive-breeding and it becomes clear that solid supporting evidence is hard to come by.

For example, in preparing for this article, I contacted the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s most recommended relevant sources on captive-breeding, with a list of questions about the conservation role played by pet traders and their bedfellow hobbyists, asking:

What exotic pet-related captive-breeding operations with associated successful species conservation or reintroduction results are you aware of that meet the following inclusion criteria:

1. directly or otherwise clearly associated with endeavours by the exotic pet industry?

2. demonstrated as successful in ceasing collection of all wild sourced animals of the same CB species and/or increasing their natural populations for more than five years?

3. scientifically verified by wholly independent parties (ie those not associated with the same breeding or reintroduction work)?

Take an informed guess …

Now, before you learn the answer, consider this: anecdotal accounts indicate that the exotic pet trade involves 4,000 species.

So, had solid case examples of ‘captive-bred – conservation success’ for, say, 3,000 species been forthcoming, then such a result would have been shockingly bad – implying that 1,000 species remain unverified, probably wild-caught, and their populations and ecosystems being drawn on or degraded.

But the news was way worse than that. Indeed, not 1,000 species met the survey criteria, actually not 500, 100, or even 10 – in fact, none! Not a single captive-breeding endeavour was reported that met these fundamental verifications.

However, readers should not be too surprised at this finding, because even the most established exotic pet-breeding programmes are nowhere near meeting the simple criteria mentioned earlier to claim successful and sustainable conservation benefits.

Take the case of one of the world’s most popular pet reptiles – the red-eared terrapin or ‘slider turtle’ as it is known in the United States. Bred on ‘farms’ in the southern USA, these baby reptiles are shipped in millions to foreign lands – domestic trade was banned in 1975 following major epidemics of turtle-associated human salmonellosis. Nevertheless, the baby turtles are captive-bred.

What was unknown for years to the scientific community was that the adults that lay the eggs for incubation are significantly wild-sourced. By doing this, the ‘farms’ (more correctly referred to as ‘ranches’ because they are not closed-cycle) deplete the species prime breeders – the large females.

Rapid population crashes follow, and not only for the red-ear, as their demise causes predators to divert from targeting the should-be abundant sliders to even more vulnerable prey. Additional impacts are also felt because ranchers’ traps randomly net and often drown other species.

If the pet industry cannot even achieve sustainable production (let alone provide a conservation benefit) for the world’s most established pet reptile, then what hope does it have with the rest?

Identifying captive-bred from wild-caught animals

Identifying legal and illegal animals from thousands of species is virtually impossible. Similarly, knowing captive-bred from wild-caught animals of the same (or many ‘lookalike’) species is extremely challenging.

Species diversity in trade is overwhelming, but further complications arise as recent research shows that what appears to be a single species may actually be several ‘hiding’ as one, according to genetic analysis.

Pet traders often misdescribe (so let’s describe it correctly – lie) about the origins of animals, easing contraband species through Customs. In fact, so frequent is the task of identifying wild-caught from captive-bred animals that border control officers are now offered special training courses.

Worryingly, breeders who experiment at producing colour variants, hybrids, ‘morphs’ also raise the growing spectre of heritable pathologies such as ‘inclusion body disease‘ and ‘wobble syndrome‘, as well as producing what may be hardier invasive species.

A paradigmatic conservation failure

Artificial production is undoubtedly increasing, although claims that it accounts for ‘90%’ of traded pet animals constitute evidence-deficient hyperbole.

Coincidence or not, increased captive-breeding frequently tallies with expanding trade, and is well-known to provide market demand for wild-sourced animals, which of course increases conservation threats.

The exotic pet industry is a major constituent of global wildlife abuse and ecological harm that cannot be fixed through any means other than positive lists (species independently verified as ‘safe’ to sell and keep) or outrights bans.

Yet, with tedious inevitability, captive-breeding proponents misleadingly point to its conservation ‘benefits’, and many others jump all too eagerly onto this ‘politically correct’ bandwagon.

However, inhumane production conditions aside, the technological and promotional successes in captive-breeding are more than matched by its paradigmatic conservation failure.

Clifford Warwick PGDipMedSci CBiol CSci EurProBiol FOCAE FRSB is a Consultant Biologist & Medical Scientist. LinkedIn

Also by Clifford Warwick on The Ecologist: ‘The exotic pet trade is a global evil that must be stopped‘.

For more information please contact:

• Animal Protection Agency;
• AAP Rescue Centre for Exotic Animals.

Sources without links

Arena, P, and Steedman, C., and Warwick, C. (2012), ‘Amphibian and reptile pet markets in the EU an investigation and assessment’. Animal Protection Agency, Animal Public, International Animal Rescue, Eurogroup for Wildlife and Laboratory Animals, Fundación para la Adopción, el Apadrinamiento y la Defensa de los Animales, 52pp.

TRAFFIC (2012), ‘Captive-bred or wild-taken?’, Traffic International, Cambridge, UK pp 10.

Warwick, C. (1986) ‘Red-eared terrapin farms and conservation’, Oryx, 20:37-40.

Warwick, C., Steedman, C., & Holford, T. (1990), ‘Ecological implications of the red-eared turtle trade’. Texas J. Sci. 42:419-22.

Many of you may have already seen the photographs (right, below), of albatross carcasses full of undigested plastic junk. But how representative is that of the wider issue facing seabirds?

To help answer that question, we carried out the first worldwide analysis of the threat posed by plastic pollution to seabird species worldwide.

Our study, published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that nearly 60% of all seabird species studied so far have had plastic in their gut. 

This figure is based on reviewing previous reports in the scientific literature, but if we use a statistical model to infer what would be found at the current time and include unstudied species, we expect that more than 90% of seabirds have eaten plastic rubbish.

Our analysis of published studies shows that the amount of plastic in seabird’s stomachs has been climbing over the past half-century. In 1960, plastic was found in the stomachs of less than 5% of seabirds, but by 2010 this had risen to 80%.

We predict that by 2050, 99% of the world’s seabird species will be accidentally eating plastic, unless we take action to clean up the oceans. Some areas of contain as many as 580,000 plastic pieces per square kilometre.

The surprse – it’s worst in the remote Southern Ocean

Perhaps surprisingly, we also found that the area with the worst expected impact is at the boundary of the Southern Ocean and the Tasman Sea, between Australia and New Zealand.

While this region is far away from the subtropical gyres, dubbed ‘ocean garbage patches’, that collect the highest densities of plastic, the highest threat is in areas where plastic rubbish overlaps with large numbers of different seabird species – such as the Southern Ocean off Australia.

Seabirds are excellent indicators of ecosystem health. The high estimates of plastic in seabirds we found were not so surprising, considering that members of our research team have previously found nearly 200 pieces of plastic in a single seabird.

These items include a wide range of things most of us would recognise: bags, bottle caps, bits of balloons, cigarette lighters, even toothbrushes and plastic toys.

Seabirds can have surprising amounts of plastic in their gut. Working on islands off Australia, we have found birds with plastics making up 8% of their body weight. Imagine a person weighing 62 kg having almost 5 kg of plastic in their digestive tract. And then think about how large that lump would be, given that many types of plastic are designed to be as lightweight as possible.

The answer is simple. Keep plastic out of the oceans

The more plastic a seabird encounters, the more it tends to eat, which means that one of the best predictors of the amount of plastic in a seabird’s gut is the concentration of ocean plastic in the region where it lives.

This finding points the way to a solution: reducing the amount of plastic that goes into the ocean would directly reduce the amount that seabirds (and other wildlife) accidentally eat. That might sound obvious, but as we can see from the stomach contents of the birds, many of the items are things people use every day, so the link to human rubbish is clear.

Our study suggests that improving waste management would directly benefit wildlife. There are several actions we could take, such as reducing packaging, banning single-use plastic items or charging an extra fee to use them, and introducing deposits for recyclable items like drink containers.

Many of these types of policies are already proving to be locally effective in reducing waste lost into the environment, a substantial portion of which ends up polluting the ocean.

One recent study of industrial practices in Europe found that improved management of plastic led to a clear reduction in the number of plastic items found in seabirds in the North Sea within a few decades. This is encouraging, as it suggests not only that the solutions are effective, but also that they work in a relatively short time.

Given that most of these items were in someone’s hands at some point, it seems that a simple behaviour change can reduce a global impact to our seabirds, and to other marine species as well.